There was a lot of confusion on Monday 19th of September 2016, when an email was sent to SCA students from Usyd, announcing the ‘Meet the New Dean’ with different dates. Some students were invited to meet the new Dean Margaret Harris on Monday, others on Tuesday and some on Friday.
On Tuesday, a group of us from the Let SCA Stay campaign went to meet the new Dean at the specified time. A small, fragile-looking woman, was sitting on a chair on the right side of the aisle on the auditorium floor. We sat down, not too close, not too far. She spoke softly and calmly, and it was very hard to hear her voice. She did not show any signs of being nervous. It became apparent very quickly that the new Dean was not at SCA to give us information. Margaret patronised some students while acting in a condescending manner to others. The new dean had come to SCA pretending to care for the students and staff but she was here to do a job for her employer Usyd, and her job is to move a shell like art school, to main campus.
Some comments from students:
So in light of “meeting” the new “dean” today. Wow. What a patronising blah of bureaucratic white noise.
The meeting today with new Dean Margaret Harris turned out to be only one of three or so meetings. How these were advertised is unclear, but it seemed this was a deliberate divide and rule tactic – to avoid another scene like with the Provost. So there was apparently a meeting with first-years yesterday, and rumours of another of Friday. Only about 15 – 20 of us there today. I think this is very insidious – why not address all students at once?
Basically, Harris is trying to pitch herself as a liaison, who will improve the communication between staff/students and the university. As others have said she was extremely patronising (making a point of telling us how articulate we are, or thanking us for our candour). She conducted the meeting in a barely audible voice – I think part of a ‘softly softly’ image.
She definitely spoke about the relocation as a done deal.
Here are some specific things she said I managed to jot down:
On our campaign:
“I can’t say I support the [Let SCA Stay] campaign. I simply cannot sign up for many aspects of the campaign.”
On who she represents:
“I am taking my mandate from the university to conduct a more reasonable discussion.”
On the process so far, after quite a lot of negative comments, she conceded the process has been:
“Utterly traumatic.” “Incredibly disruptive.” “Poor information.”
On cutting 60% of staff:
“I’m not supporting the cuts, but if that’s what has got to happen…”
[I followed up by asking if she would be putting in a submission against the staff cuts. She went on a weird rant in response.]
On did she support having a Dean elected by staff and students?
“No. I do not support that.”
On, why the rush on this whole process:
“There are legally binding aspects, like the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement.”
On the BVA:
“It’s too late to re-advertise the BVA”. When pressed, since cutoff is not until (November/Dec?): “That’s my opinion. That it is too late now.”
Funny…[in response to X’s very direct questioning on ‘Will she be the hench woman?’].
“I consider myself on notice.”
“I do not want to be a henchwoman.”
Does she see any merits to the campaign so far?
“I was impressed by the organisation of the students. The action outside the art gallery was very disciplined and well organised.”
On being offered a campaign badge:
“Do you have one that says ‘Save Margaret?'”
A note on the EBA: she made it obvious the university is anxious to sort out the redundancies before they have to renegotiate contracts for staff next year, binding for a further 3 years.
ugh eww seriously shame shit different spade, super patronising and trying to look like the good guy while still be 100% establishment as if that’s even possible.
Sounds like she’s been given exactly the same spiel as Garton. He says exactly same things at the SCG meetings. “Traumatic”, “move being a done deal” etc. identical and really disconcerting 😦
OccupySCA 